JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this revision, at the instance of the wife, the only question for consideration is whether the lower revisional Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate granting a sum of Rs. 75/- as maintenance to the wife in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The applicant wife claimed maintenance from the non-applicant/ husband on the ground that she was ill-treated in the house of the husband and the husband on the pretext of taking her to her father's house boarded the train with her but after the train started, he got down and the wife had to travel all alone to her parents place. Thereafter the non-applicant husband refused to take her back to his village and maintain her. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of the wife and the husband came to the conclusion that there was clearly neglect and refusal on the part of the husband to maintain the wife and granted a sum of Rs. 75/- as maintenance, which was made payable from 6-10-1978 i.e. the date of application made by the wife for maintenance. 3. The revisional Court set aside the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate by holding in paragraph 11 of the impugned order that the wife no-where stated in her statement that she was unable to maintain herself. It is on the above short ground that the order of maintenance was set aside. It may be stated that the husband had made attempts in the Court below to oppose the claim of maintenance also on the ground that the wife being a second wife was not a legally wedded wife and, therefore not entitled to maintenance. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to hold that the marriage between the parties was not a legal marriage. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant assailed the order of the revisional Court on the ground that in the application as also in her statement the applicant had very clearly stated that she was not engaged in any job or vocation and as was suggested in cross-examination, she also denied that she was selling vegetables in the market. In paragraph 6 of her statement she very clearly states that she is totally dependant on her mother for her maintenance. In paragraph 6 of her statement she very clearly states that she is totally dependant on her mother for her maintenance. On the face of this clear statement it was totally incorrect on the part of the revisional Court to hold that the wife led no evidence to show that she was unable to maintain herself. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/husband made a feeble attempt to show that in the application as also in her statement before the trial Court, the applicant wife was unable to prove her inability to maintain herself. The learned counsel mainly supported the order of the revisional Court on the ground that the finding of the two courts below that the applicant wife was a legally wedded wife, was incorrect. The learned counsel argued that the applicant wife had admitted in his statement that she was married in churi form, which according to the custom of the community signifies the second marriage. Arguing farther the learned counsel submitted that the non-applicant bad first married another woman from whom he had children and the second marriage with the present applicant was void and, therefore, the applicant could not claim maintenance as a legally wedded wife. 6. I have read, along with the learned counsel for the parties, the statement of the wife in her cross-examination in the above respect and the statement of the husband in his examination-in-chief. The wife, in her statement in paragraph 5, very clearly refuted the suggestion of the husband that the husband had no children from the first wife and, therefore, he married the present applicant, for the purpose of getting children. Just contrary to the above suggestion made by the husband in the cross-examination of the wife, in his examination-in-chief, the husband stated that his first legally wife was still living with him and he has children from her. These two contrary versions of the husband totally falsifies his case of the marriage with the applicant as the second wife. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant, therefore, has absolutely no force and is rejected. 7. Consequently, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 8-12-1983 passed by the Sessions Judge Raigarh is hereby set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10-1-1983 is maintained with the following modification. The learned Magistrate has granted amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7. Consequently, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 8-12-1983 passed by the Sessions Judge Raigarh is hereby set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10-1-1983 is maintained with the following modification. The learned Magistrate has granted amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month from the date of application i.e. 6-10-1978. Under Section 125(2) of the Cr.P.C., the maintenance is to be ordered to be paid from the date of the order and the direction for payment from the date of the application has to be supported by some exceptional circumstances on reasons. The learned Magistrate in his order has no where stated as to why the amount of maintenance is being ordered to be made payable from the date of the application. The amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month shall, therefore, be made payable from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate i.e. 10-1-1983.